A Critique of Gelberg’s Study on Fluoride/Osteosarcoma in New York

The case-control study by Gelberg, published first as a PhD dissertation and then later in two peer-reviewed journals, may represent the most substantive study on fluoride/osteosarcoma previous to Bassin’s 2001 analysis. In assessing Gelberg’s data, we were at first struck by the existence of several notable errors in both the thesis and papers. While these errors do raise questions about the study, our primary concern with Gelberg’s work relates to the methods she used to analyze her data.

Fluoride/Osteosarcoma Link Is Biologically Plausible

The “biological plausiblility” of a fluoride-osteosarcoma link is widely acknowledged in the scientific literature. The biological plausibility centers around three facts: 1) Bone is the principal site of fluoride accumulation, particularly during the growth spurts of childhood; 2) Fluoride is a mutagen when present at sufficient concentrations, and 3) Fluoride can stimulate the proliferation of osteoblasts (bone-forming cells).

Fluoride & Osteosarcoma: A Timeline

Several human epidemiological studies have found an association between fluoride in drinking water and the occurrence of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in young males. These studies are consistent with the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) cancer bioassay which found that fluoride-treated male rats had an dose-dependent increase in osteosarcoma. Although a number of studies have failed to detect an association between fluoride and osteosarcoma, none of these studies have measured the risk of fluoride at specific windows in time, which based on recent results, is the critical question with respect to fluoride and osteosarcoma.